Subject:
|
Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Apr 2003 08:44:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2740 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> > That was actually the incident that threw me into enough of a spin to post
> > to this discussion. Basically, I totally agreed with Tom's position, though
> > actually saying so would have been as politically incorrect and ill-advised
> > as Tom's post was in the first place. And from offline conversations I know
> > that more than a couple of people had exactly the same reaction to Nick's
> > post that Tom and I did, and about the same reaction to his
> > morally-high-handed 'admission of fault' as well. Tom's posts were
> > definitely very much appreciated even while we all agreed that they were
> > horribly inappropriate nad no sane person would have thought it was a good
> > idea to post them.
>
> So, I guess I am one of the people that you view as someone jumping on
> legitimate criticism since I effectively disagreed with Tom. Tom has a
> long-time habit of flaming people he disgrees with or find faults with.
I've flamed very few people on Lugnet. Maybe you just have a sore spot because
you were one of them?
> He
> is one of two people on Lugnet that I just find too obnoxious for words to
> convey (and I'll make no bones about it, Scott Arthur is the other - though
> I suppose Tom is more bearable since his flames are much more sporadic).
Well, we agree on something else. I find you too obnoxious for words too. Of
all the people on Lugnet I ignore, Scott is the #1 on the list, and surprise,
surprise, you are #2. There are others that I wish I could ignore, but letting
them spout their hatred and bigotry with no response would darken the world. You
and Scott, I just find extremely annoying. Twit-filters are aptly named. But I
only place twit-filters for .debate, no other groups (I read, and reply, to
Scott's posts in other groups from time to time, as I try to keep anything
created in .debate within .debate - evidently you don't have that kind of
discipline or control). Maybe it's time to add you to the filter, though.
> In
> the sense that Tom was right is not the point, it is how he expresses
> himself. What did Tom accomplish by more controversy? He could have
> imparted the same message without being so singularly abrasive.
Sure I could have. And maybe it would have made Nick think twice about whining
(though I doubt it after seeing his sarcastic reply). But would it have made
EVERYONE think twice about whining? Probably not.
If you want to be super-polite and try to put out each match with a soda straw as
it flares to light, hoping you catch them all (as more and more are lit) before
the forest fire rages, be my guest. I'll use the fire hose so the forest is
still there in the future, even if it's there to burn me.
> Tom speaks of tough love. Tough love is needed when people don't get the
> message the first time. Nick did. Tom hasn't. So if Tom doesn't like my
> comments, by his own standards, tough.
I couldn't care less about your comments, Bruce, as I too think you are a
singularly abrasive person from some of your postings to .debate. But we'll take
that up in .debate if you wish (oh, wait, you've put me on Ignore, so won't see
my postings. Oh well).
> Yes, I appreciate that the whininess
> is annoying, but are you saying that in this particular case it was best
> handled by Tom's method, or is this more an expression of disgust at the
> overall level of whining (which seems inappropriate to me to take out on one
> person for one occassion)?
>
> >
> > Now I don't have anything against Nick personally, he seems like a perfectly
> > nice guy with a perfectly nice site. It didn't seem like there was anything
> > in that conversation even worth worrying about, just two guys each taking a
> > string of events a little more personally than they should have, the kind of
> > thing that works itself out after both of the involved parties have had a
> > chance to blow off some steam. The only point at which it became a strongly
> > negative experience for me, believe it or not, was when you "hear hear"ed
> > Nick's "your comment isn't appreciated by anyone," changing it from simple
> > bickering between two guys to suddenly being a community endorsement of the
> > censorship of negative opinions. (That was just gut-reaction though, I'm a
> > little sensitive about people claiming moral superiority to tell other
> > people their opinions aren't valid, and so I originally saw the exchange in
> > only those terms.)
>
>
> As I said, it wasn't the negative opinion, per se, it was the style of
> expression. Whininess and obnoxiousness are both annoying. At least Nick
> apologized in a number of messages.
>
> > > He is known for writing blunt posts which several have been offended
> > > by.
> >
> > Which happen to be exactly the kind of posts I like best. People are too
> > easily offended around here.
>
>
> Then what's the problem with Tom getting blunt criticism back? He's too
> arrogant to be offended by it, at the least.
It takes a lot to offend me. Evidently it takes very little to offend you. I
find it hard to respect people that are so easily offended.
> I'll say it again, it isn't
> Tom's sentiment that I take issue with, it's his numerous overreactions that
> I wish he would curb.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Obnoxious over-reaction vs. sugar coating
|
| (...) It gets worse: Lego, computer message boards, gaming. The last is damning! No emoticons to soften that. Happy? (which comes off as snippy for those who don't realize I'm a long-time gamer, which illustrates the problems with the written word) (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)
|
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
